BILAL NAZKI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was working as superintendent in Central Excise department. A crime was registered against him being Crime No. 37/1993. The allegation against him was that he had leaked EAMCET-993 question papers. As a result of prosecution the petitioner was convicted for the offences under Secs. 120-B, 406, 411 and 420 IPC and sentenced to one year imprisonment. A fine of Rs. 1,000. 00 was also imposed. After he was convicted the commissioner of Customs and Central excise, who is disciplinary authority, issued a show cause notice under Rule 19 of C. C. S (CCA) Rules, 1965. By this notice the petitioner was asked to show cause why penalty of dismissal from service be not imposed on him as he had been convicted by a Criminal Court. The petitioner challenged this notice before the Tribunal by way of O. A. No. 165/2002. The Tribunal on 18-2-2002 passed an interim order not to proceed against the petitioner on the ground that a Criminal Appeal against his conviction was pending before the appellate court. Thereafter the case came to be finally decided by the Tribunal by order dated 7th february, 2003. The O. A. was dismissed, hence the Writ Petition. ( 2 ) THE facts are not disputed. The petitioner stands convicted under secs. l20-B, 406,411 and 420 of IPC. He has been sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000. 00. The appeal filed by him is pending. Sentence has been suspended. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, since the appeal against conviction is pending therefore in terms of Rule 19 of the ccs (CCA) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred as the rules ) punishment could not be awarded to the petitioner. He submits that, rule 19 gives power to the authority concerned to impose penalty on a government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to the conviction of the government servant on a criminal charge without holding an inquiry, but in the present case since the sentence was suspended it should be assumed that there is no penalty imposed on the petitioner as on to-day. It would be only when the appeal is decided that it would be known whether the petitioner is convicted or acquitted. It would be only when the appeal is decided that it would be known whether the petitioner is convicted or acquitted. If his conviction is sustained then the penalty would revive, but till then the penalty part of conviction is under cloud. According to the learned counsel, under Rule 19 (i) conviction is not important but important is whether penalty imposed is in force or not. We really appreciate the ingenuity of the learned counsel of making such an argument but we are not convinced about its correctness. Penalty is result of conviction and as long as conviction remains penalty also remains. In the present case, the petitioner has been convicted and penalized. Penalty is postponed till the disposal of the appeal but conviction remains. Unless the petitioner gets himself acquitted from the appellate Court he remains a convict, but in order to get the appeal decided in terms of the provisions of Code of Criminal procedure the petitioner s sentence has been that power like every other power has to be exercised fairly, justly and reasonably. Surely, the Constitution does not contemplated that a government servant who is convicted for parking his scooter in a no-parking area should be dismissed from service. He may, perhaps, not be entitled to be heard on the question of penalty since clause (a) of the second proviso to article 311 (2) makes the provisions of that article inapplicable when a penalty is to be imposed on a government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge. But the right to impose a penalty carried with it the duty to act justly. ( 3 ) WHAT is really relevant thus is the conduct of the government servant which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge. Now, in this case, the respondent has been found guilty of corruption by a criminal court. Until the said conviction is set aside by the appellate or other higher court, it may not be advisable to retain such person in service. As stated above, if he succeeds in appeal or other proceeding, the matter can always be reviewed in such a manner that he suffers no prejudice. Same view was expressed by the Supreme court in Union of India v. Ramesh Kumar. As stated above, if he succeeds in appeal or other proceeding, the matter can always be reviewed in such a manner that he suffers no prejudice. Same view was expressed by the Supreme court in Union of India v. Ramesh Kumar. The supreme Court, in this case, was interpreting Rule 19 itself, which we are trying to interpret in this proceeding, and the Supreme Court held;"a bare reading of Rule 19 shows that the disciplinary authority is empowered to take action against a government servant on the ground of misconduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge. The rules, however, do not provide that on suspension of execution of sentence by the appellate court the order of dismissal based on conviction stands obliterated and the dismissed government servant has to be treated under suspension till disposal of appeal by the appellate court. The rules also do not provide the disciplinary authority to await disposal of the appeal by the appellate court filed by a government servant for taking action against him on the ground of misconduct which has led to his conviction by a competent court of law. Having regard to the provisions of the rules, the order dismissing the respondent from service on the ground of misconduct leading to his conviction by a competent court of law has not lost its sting merely because a criminal appeal was filed by the respondent against his conviction and the appellate court has suspended the execution of sentence and enlarged the respondent on bail. This matter may be examined from another angle. Under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellate court has power to suspend the execution of sentence and to release an accused on bail. When the appellate court suspends the execution of sentence, and grants bail to an accused the effect of the order is that the sentence based on conviction is for the time being postponed, or kept in abeyance during the pendency of the appeal. In other words, by suspension of execution of sentence under Sec. 389 cr. P. C an accused avoids undergoing sentence pending criminal appeal. In other words, by suspension of execution of sentence under Sec. 389 cr. P. C an accused avoids undergoing sentence pending criminal appeal. However, the conviction continues and is not obliterated and if the conviction is not obliterated, any action taken against a government servant on a misconduct which lead to his conviction by the court of law does not lose its efficacy merely because the appellate court has suspended the execution of sentence. Such being the position of law, the Administrative tribunal fell into error in holding that by suspension of execution of sentence by the appellate court, the order of dismissal passed against the respondent was liable to be quashed and the respondent is to be treated under suspension till the disposal of criminal appeal by the High court. " ( 4 ) GOING by these judgments of the supreme Court and finding that it is the conviction in a criminal case which leads to departmental action and not the penalty imposed, and it is only the penalty which has been suspended and not the conviction, because of suspension of penalty the conviction does not lose its sting and the petitioner continues to be a convicted person, we do not find merit in this Writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. The order of the Tribunal is upheld. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners seeks leave to file appeal before the Supreme court. We do not think it is an appropriate case in which leave can be granted as the matter has been decided in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court.